Checks and Balances and the “Vetocracy” Dilemma of American Democracy: A Study of American Democratic Efficiency from the Perspective of Institutional Costs
-
摘要: 分权制衡是美国民主政治的基础性制度安排,对防范政治暴虐、平衡多元利益、增强决策审慎发挥着重要作用,但这一制度安排需要付出牺牲决策效率的成本。近年来,由于美国民主党和共和党两大政党的政治立场发生极化,且总统职位和国会两院常常由不同政党控制,政党对立的严重影响传导到政府机构层面,造成“否决政治”,美国政府分权制衡制度安排的收益下降,成本显著上升,使美国的民主运行和国家治理受到较为严重的负面影响。解决这一问题,理论上可以采取减少政党对立但不触及分权制衡制度安排的思路,也可以采取调整参议院、众议院和总统三者之间的立法制衡关系或改行议会制等制度改革路径。现实当中,美国改变分权制衡制度安排的可能性很小,除非其制度成本上升至美国社会无法承受的程度。Abstract: A system of checks and balances is the basic institutional arrangement of American democratic politics.It plays an important role in preventing political tyranny,balancing diversified interests and enhancing decision-making prudence.However, this institutional arrangement requires sacrificing decision-making efficiency.In recent years, the views of the two major political parties—the Democrats and the Republicans—have become polarized.The presidency and the two houses of Congress are often controlled by different parties.The antagonism between the political parties has resulted in a “vetocracy.” The benefits of the American government's decentralized system have decreased,while the costs have risen remarkably.This has caused the operation of American democracy and state governance to be negatively impacted.To solve this problem,in theory,we can adopt the idea of reducing the opposition of the political parties without touching the institutional arrangement of checks and balances.We also can adopt the institutional reform paths of adjusting the legislative checks and balances between the U.S.Senate,the House of Representatives and the President, or changing the presidential system to a parliamentary system.In reality, the possibility of changing the institutional arrangement of checks and balances is very unlikely-unless institutional costs rise to a point that American society cannot afford.
-
Key words:
- American democracy /
- checks and balances /
- institutional cost /
- efficiency of democracy
-
[1] [美]汉密尔顿,杰伊,麦迪逊.联邦党人文集[M].程逢如,在汉,舒逊译.北京:商务印书馆,1980. [2] [美]格伦·贝克.常识——反对一个失控的美国[M].徐红燕译.北京:法律出版社,2010. [3] Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush,Obama Years[EB/OL].(2012-06-04)[2018-07-28].http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surgesin-bush-obama-years/. [4] [美]弗朗西斯·福山.政治秩序与政治衰败:从工业革命到民主全球化[M].毛俊杰译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2015. [5] [美]弗朗西斯·福山.衰败的美利坚——政治制度失灵的根源[EB/OL].(2014-10-12)[2018-06-18].http://www.guancha.cn/fu-lang-xi-si-fu-shan/2014_10_12_275200.shtml. [6] [法]邦雅曼·贡斯当.古代人的自由与现代人的自由——贡斯当政治论文选[C].阎克文、刘满贵译.上海:上海人民出版社,2003. [7] Large Majorities See Checks and Balances,Right to Protest as Essential for Democracy[EB/OL].(2017-03-02)[2018-06-18].http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balancesright-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/. [8] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.古典政治理性主义的重生——施特劳斯思想入门[C].郭振华,叶然译.北京:华夏出版社,2011.
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 971
- HTML全文浏览量: 32
- PDF下载量: 19
- 被引次数: 0